The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detecting spammers on social networks
Abstract
Social networking has become a popular way for users to meet and interact online. Users spend a significant amount of time on popular social network platforms (such as Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter), storing and sharing a wealth of personal information. This information, as well as the possibility of contacting thousands of users, also attracts the interest of cybercriminals. For example, cybercriminals might exploit the implicit trust relationships between users in order to lure victims to malicious websites. As another example, cybercriminals might find personal information valuable for identity theft or to drive targeted spam campaigns.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Such feature sets are then used to train and test machine learning classifiers in order to distinguish between humans and spammers.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Both of them propose a list of features to be extracted from manually classified datasets of accounts.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“With both the [2] and [8] feature sets, BN, kNN and LR classifiers achieve, overall, worse performances.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“3. the content of spambots' tweets exhibits the so-called message similarity ;”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The study presented in [8] focuses on spambot detection.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The ones built over the feature set of [2] achieve slightly better results.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“1. spambots do not have thousands of friends;”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“In addition, all the classifiers based on the feature set by [2] have a higher AUC , when compared with the ones built with the feature set by [8].”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Anyway, the latter also obtain high detection levels: accuracy, precision, and recall are around 0.98 for RF, D and J48, with a MCC of around 0.96.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The lower precision and recall with respect to the ones obtained using the set of Yang et al. [2] show that the features of Stringhini et al. [8] exhibit the tendency to consider as fake followers some human accounts.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“total tweets 5. spambots have a high friends ( followersˆ2 ) ratio value (i.e., lower ratio values mean legitimate users).”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The authors exploit several characteristics that can be gathered crawling an account's details, both from its profile and timeline. For each investigated account, such characteristics are exploited in a Random Forest algorithm [23, 43], that outputs if the account is a spambot or not.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Even if the proposed features have been originally designed for spam detection, here, for the first time, we consider them to spot another category of Twitter accounts, i.e., the fake followers.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“4. spambots have a high tweets containing URLs ratio ( URL ratio );”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“2. spambots have sent less than 20 tweets;”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“We start observing that the Class C classifiers, built over all the features considered in our study, perform better than all the other ones, including the classifiers using the feature sets of Yang et al. [2] and Stringhini et al. [8], as reported in Table 12.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as Stringhini et al. [8]
In the citing paper
“meaning that the latter is able to miss fewer fakes than the former one after pruning.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as Stringhini et al. [8]
In the citing paper
“The decision tree obtained with the feature set of Stringhini et al. [8] has 22 leaves, 43 nodes, and a height of 7, whereas the best feature is the friends/(followersˆ2) ratio that places at the root.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Looking at the tree structure, we observe some interesting differences between the fake followers in our BAS dataset and the spam accounts characterized in [8] and [2].”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, we clearly observe that the pruned version of Stringhini et al. [8] reduces its recall of 0.017, while the one of Yang et al. [2] only drops of 0.004”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as Stringhini et al. [8]
In the citing paper
“Overall, the results of this experiment show that, even reducing the features, it is possible to have a detection rate higher than 0.95 (as in the last lines of Table 13, for [8] and [2], respectively).”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as Stringhini et al. [8]
In the citing paper
“Similarly, we have seen that the feature set proposed by Yang et al. [2] seems to be slightly more effective than the one proposed by Stringhini et al. [8], when used in feature-based classifiers aiming at fake followers detection.”
From Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers (2015) · cites this paper as Stringhini et al. [8]
In the citing paper
“Unlike [30, 44], we leverage timeline-based features for the detection of fake accounts.”
From Measuring, Characterizing, and Detecting Facebook Like Farms (2017) · cites this paper as [44]
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Jagatic, T. N., Johnson, N. A., Jakobsson, M., & Menczer, F. (2007) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1290958.1290968 · Cited by 1,156
Krishnamurthy, B., Gill, P., & Arlitt, M. (2008) · Proceedings of the first workshop on Online social networks · doi:10.1145/1397735.1397741 · Cited by 697
All your contacts are belong to us
Bilge, L., Strufe, T., Balzarotti, D., & Kirda, E. (2009) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/1526709.1526784 · Cited by 551
Detecting spam in a Twitter network
Schoenebeck, S. Y., Romero, D. M., Schoenebeck, G. R., & boyd, D. (2009) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v15i1.2793 · Cited by 349
Social networks and context-aware spam
Brown, G., Howe, T., Ihbe, M., Prakash, A., & Borders, K. (2008) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/1460563.1460628 · Cited by 138
Social Honeypots: Making Friends With A Spammer Near You.
Webb, S., Caverlee, J., & Pu, C. (2008) · Cited by 110
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Sophos facebook id probe. http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2007/08/facebook.html , 2008 . Sophos facebook id probe. http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2007/08/facebook.html, 2008.
- J. Baltazar , J. Costoya , and R. Flores . Koobface: The largest web 2.0 botnet explained . 2009 . J. Baltazar, J. Costoya, and R. Flores. Koobface: The largest web 2.0 botnet explained. 2009.
- Harris Interactive Public Relations Research . A study of social networks scams . 2008 . Harris Interactive Public Relations Research. A study of social networks scams. 2008.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 783
A Social Spam Detection Framework via Semi-supervised Learning
Zhang, X., Bai, H., & Liang, W. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42996-0_18 · Cited by 10
Opinion Spam Detection in Social Networks
Fei, G., Li, H., & Liu, B. (2016) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-804412-4.00009-7 · Cited by 11
Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Yuan, X., & Tzeng, N.-F. (2019) · ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ASIA CCS) · doi:10.1145/3321705.3329836 · Cited by 10
Pseudo-Honeypot: Toward Efficient and Scalable Spam Sniffer
Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Yuan, X., & Tzeng, N.-F. (2019) · International Conference on Dependable Systems & Networks/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/dsn.2019.00052 · Cited by 10
Graph based Unsupervised Learning Methods for Edge and Node Anomaly Detection in Social Network
Venkatesan, M., & Prabhavathy, P. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Energy, Systems and Information Processing (ICESIP) · doi:10.1109/icesip46348.2019.8938364 · Cited by 10
Zhu, C., Zhao, W., Li, Q., Pan, L., & Da, Q. (2019) · Computers, materials & continua/Computers, materials & continua (Print) · doi:10.32604/cmc.2019.05677 · Cited by 12
A hybrid framework for bot detection on twitter: Fusing digital DNA with BERT
Chawla, V., & Kapoor, Y. (2023) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-023-14730-5 · Cited by 10
Keyvanpour, M. R., Moradi, M., & Hasanzadeh, F. (2014) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05885-6_2 · Cited by 10
Harvesting the low-hanging fruits
Halawa, H. H., Beznosov, K., Boshmaf, Y., Coşkun, B., Ripeanu, M., & Santos‐Neto, E. (2016) · New Security Paradigms Workshop · doi:10.1145/3011883.3011885 · Cited by 11
Badly Evolved? Exploring Long-Surviving Suspicious Users on Twitter
Alfifi, M., & Caverlee, J. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67217-5_14 · Cited by 10
A proposed spam detection approach for Arabic social networks content
Mataoui, M., Zelmati, O., Boughaci, D., Chaouche, M., & Lagoug, F. (2017) · International Conference on Mathematics and Information Technology (ICMIT) · doi:10.1109/mathit.2017.8259721 · Cited by 10
What's in a Name? Understanding Profile Name Reuse on TwitterPreprint
Mariconti, E., Onaolapo, J. O., Ahmad, S. S., Nikiforou, N., Egele, M., Nikiforakis, N., & Stringhini, G. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.04256 · Cited by 10
Self-citationPierri, F. (2024) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00501-1 · Cited by 9
Hiding in plain sight: characterizing and detecting malicious Facebook pages
Dewan, P., Bagroy, S., & Kumaraguru, P. (2016) · Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining · doi:10.5555/3192424.3192460 · Cited by 9
Rumor Propagation Detection System in Social Network Services
Yang, H., Zhong, J., Ha, D.-S., & Oh, H. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42345-6_8 · Cited by 9
Towards Automatic Bot Detection in Twitter for Health-related Tasks
Davoudi, A., Klein, A. Z., Sarker, A., & Gonzalez‐Hernandez, G. (2019) · PubMed Central · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.13184 · Cited by 9
Text-Convolutional Neural Networks for Fake News Detection in Tweets
Sinha, H., Sakshi, S., & Sharma, Y. (2020) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5788-0_8 · Cited by 9
SkillVet: Automated Traceability Analysis of Amazon Alexa Skills
Edu, J., Ferrer, X., Such, J. M., & Suárez‐Tangil, G. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2021.3129116 · Cited by 12
Understanding social effects in online networks
Alhazmi, H., Gokhale, S. S., & Doran, D. (2015) · 2012 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC) · doi:10.1109/iccnc.2015.7069459 · Cited by 9
Multi-stage self-training social bot detection based on graph neural network
Wang, K., Wang, X., Chen, K., Wang, Z., & Zheng, K. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.110816 · Cited by 8
A Study of Spam Detection Algorithm on Social Media Networks
Saini, J. S. (2013) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-81-322-1680-3_22 · Cited by 8
Detecting Spam on Twitter via Message-Passing Based on Retweet-Relation
Chen, P.-C., Lee, H.-M., Tyan, H.-R., Wu, J.-S., & Wei, T.-E. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13987-6_6 · Cited by 8
Wang, X., Tang, H., Zheng, K., & Tao, Y. (2020) · IET Information Security · doi:10.1049/iet-ifs.2018.5286 · Cited by 8
Twitter Spam Accounts Detection Using Machine Learning Models
Alsunaidi, S. J., Alraddadi, R. T., & Aljamaan, H. (2022) · International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks (CICN) · doi:10.1109/cicn56167.2022.10008339 · Cited by 9
Modak, S., Mulla, Z. A. S., Verma, A., Sunalini, K. K., Khan, P. M. D. A., & Gupta, P. K. (2023) · International Conference on Electronics and Sustainable Communication Systems (ICESC) · doi:10.1109/icesc57686.2023.10193622 · Cited by 9
Choi, J., Jeon, B., & Jeon, C. (2024) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s24072263 · Cited by 8
Analysis of Text Mining Techniques over Public Pages of Facebook
Agrawal, H., & Kaushal, R. (2016) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Computing (IACC) · doi:10.1109/iacc.2016.12 · Cited by 8
Detecting compromised accounts on the Pokec online social network
Boháčik, J., Fuchs, A., & Benedikovic, M. (2017) · International Conference on Information and Digital Technologies (IDT) · doi:10.1109/dt.2017.8024272 · Cited by 8
Data Quality Challenges in Social Spam Research
El-Mawass, N., & Alaboodi, S. S. (2017) · Journal of Data and Information Quality · doi:10.1145/3090057 · Cited by 8
Cross-Domain Spam Detection in Social Media: A Survey
Dhaka, D., & Mehrotra, M. (2019) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8300-7_9 · Cited by 8
Emotions Behind Drive-by Download Propagation on Twitter
Javed, A., Burnap, P., Williams, M. L., & RANA, O. F. (2020) · ACM Transactions on the Web · doi:10.1145/3408894 · Cited by 9
Kanavos, A., Αντωνόπουλος, Ν., Karamitsos, I., & Phivos Mylonas, B. (2023) · International Workshop on Semantic and Social Media Adaptation and Personalization (SMAP) · doi:10.1109/smap59435.2023.10255184 · Cited by 8
A unified approach for domain-specific tweet sentiment analysis
Ribeiro, P. L. V., Weigang, L., & Li, T. (2015) · Cited by 8
Detecting social media mobile botnets using user activity correlation and artificial immune system
Al-Dayil, R., & Dahshan, M. H. (2016) · International Conference on Information and Communication Systems (ICICS) · doi:10.1109/iacs.2016.7476095 · Cited by 8
Detecting Compromised High-Profile Accounts on Social Networks
Phad, P. V., & Chavan, M. K. (2018) · International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) · doi:10.1109/icccnt.2018.8493851 · Cited by 8
Oui! Outlier Interpretation on Multi‐dimensional Data via Visual Analytics
Zhao, X., Cui, W., Wu, Y., Zhang, H., Qu, H., & Zhang, D. (2019) · Computer Graphics Forum · doi:10.1111/cgf.13683 · Cited by 8
Social Network Polluting Contents Detection through Deep Learning Techniques
Martinelli, F., Mercaldo, F., & Santone, A. (2019) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2019.8852080 · Cited by 8
Malicious accounts detection from online social networks: a systematic review of literature
Sassi, I. B., & Yahia, S. B. (2021) · International Journal of General Systems · doi:10.1080/03081079.2021.1976773 · Cited by 8
Susceptibility to URL-based Internet attacks: Facebook vs. email
Benenson, Z., Girard, A., Hintz, N., & Luder, A. (2014) · IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops) · doi:10.1109/percomw.2014.6815275 · Cited by 8
A model-based approach for identifying spammers in social networks
Fathaliani, F., & Bouguessa, M. (2015) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) · doi:10.1109/dsaa.2015.7344843 · Cited by 8
Hunting for Spammers: Detecting Evolved Spammers on TwitterPreprint
El-Mawass, N., & Alaboodi, S. S. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1512.02573 · Cited by 8
Online Research Methods, Quantitative
Hocevar, K. P., & Flanagin, A. J. (2017) · The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods · doi:10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0174 · Cited by 8
Detecting Malicious Content on FacebookPreprint
Dewan, P., & Kumaraguru, P. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1501.00802 · Cited by 8
The Red Book: A Roadmap for Systems Security Research
Ict, T. (2013) · Cited by 7
Shi, S., Chen, J., Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Fu, C.-Q., Qiao, K., & Yan, B. (2024) · International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems · doi:10.1007/s44196-024-00496-7 · Cited by 7
Implementation of a system to detect malicious URLs for Twitter users
Gawale, N. S., & Patil, N. N. (2015) · doi:10.1109/pervasive.2015.7087078 · Cited by 7
Two Phase Based Spammer Detection in Weibo
Zheng, X., Wang, J., Jie, F., & Li, L. (2015) · IEEE ... International Conference on Data Mining workshops · doi:10.1109/icdmw.2015.22 · Cited by 7
Privacy Leakage via Attribute Inference in Directed Social Networks
Wong, R. K., & Vidyalakshmi, B. S. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50011-9_26 · Cited by 7
Anomalous behavior detection in social networking
Chauhan, V. S., Pilaniya, A., Middha, V., Gupta, A., Bana, U., Prasad, B. R., & Agarwal, S. (2017) · International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) · doi:10.1109/icccnt.2017.8204141 · Cited by 7
Detecting Indonesian Spammer on Twitter
Setiawan, E. B., Widyantoro, D. H., & Surendro, K. (2018) · doi:10.1109/icoict.2018.8528773 · Cited by 7
Profiling Astroturfing Facebook Users During Three Contiguous Israeli Election Periods
Schler, J., Bonchek-Dokow, E., Vainstein, T., Gotam, M., & Teplitsky, M. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata50022.2020.9378207 · Cited by 7
From past to present: Spam detection and identifying opinion leaders in social networks
Girgin, A. B. A. (2022) · Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences – Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi · doi:10.14744/sigma.2022.00043 · Cited by 7
SNOC: Streaming Network Node Classification
Guo, T., Xingquan Zhu, A., Pei, J., & Zhang, C. (2014) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icdm.2014.55 · Cited by 7
Gao, H., Chen, Y., Lee, K., Palsetia, D., & Choudhary, A. (2011) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/2046707.2093489 · Cited by 7
Why allowing profile name reuse is a bad idea
Mariconti, E., Onaolapo, J. O., Ahmad, S. S., Nikiforou, N., Egele, M., Nikiforakis, N., & Stringhini, G. (2016) · European Workshop on System Security · doi:10.1145/2905760.2905762 · Cited by 7
Self-citationNovel Comment Spam Filtering Method on Youtube: Sentiment Analysis and Personality Recognition
Ezpeleta, E., Garitano, I., Nuño, I. A., Hidalgo, J. M. G., & Zurutuza, U. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74433-9_21 · Cited by 7
DETECTION OF COMPROMISED ACCOUNTS IN ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORK
Rane, S., Ainapurkar, M., & Wadekar, A. (2018) · International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC) · doi:10.1109/iccmc.2018.8487486 · Cited by 7
Confidence Index Analysis of Twitter Users Timeline
İş, H., & Tuncer, T. (2018) · International Artificial Intelligence and Data Processing Symposium (IDAP) · doi:10.1109/idap.2018.8620917 · Cited by 8
An APPROACH OF Filtering The Content Of Posts In Social Media
Kumaresamoorthy, N., & Firdhous, M. (2018) · International Conference on Information Technology Research (ICITR) · doi:10.1109/icitr.2018.8736152 · Cited by 7
Spammer Detection on Weibo Social Network
Zeng, Z., Zheng, X., Chen, G., & Yu, Y. (2014) · IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science · doi:10.1109/cloudcom.2014.14 · Cited by 7
Evaluating Classifiers in Detecting 419 Scams in Bilingual Cybercriminal CommunitiesPreprint
Mbaziira, A. V., Abozinadah, E., & Jones, J. H. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1508.04123 · Cited by 7
Uncovering Malicious Accounts in Online Social Networks Using XGBoost and Graph Convolution Networks
Tang, Y., Zhang, D., Li, K.-C., & Yuan, J. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics · doi:10.1109/tce.2024.3406194 · Cited by 6
Comparative Analysis of Fake Account Detection Using Machine Learning Algorithms
Padmavathi, A., & Vaisshnavi, K. B. (2024) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Signal Processing (AISP) · doi:10.1109/aisp61711.2024.10870733 · Cited by 6
Framework for detecting phishing crimes on Twitter using selective features and machine learning
Rashid, H., Liaqat, H. B., Sana, M. U., Kiren, T., Karamti, H., & Ashraf, I. (2025) · Computers & Electrical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2025.110363 · Cited by 6
Efficient Detection of Content Polluters in Social Networks
Han, J. S., & Park, B. J. (2012) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5860-5_119 · Cited by 6
Pérez, C., Birregah, B., Layton, R., Lemercier, M., & Watters, P. (2013) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) · doi:10.1145/2492517.2500234 · Cited by 6
Feature Selection for Identification of Fake Profiles on Facebook
Munga, J. B., & Mohandas, P. (2022) · World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7 - 12, 2009, Munich, Germany · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90724-2_53 · Cited by 6
Semi-supervised internet water army detection based on graph embedding
He, Y., Yang, P., & Cheng, P. (2022) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-022-13633-1 · Cited by 6
Clustering high dimensional data
Kriegel, H., & Ntoutsi, E. (2014) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/2641190.2641192 · Cited by 6
Identification of Sybil Communities Generating Context-Aware Spam on Online Social Networks
Ahmed, F., & Abulaish, M. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37401-2_28 · Cited by 6
Washha, M., Qaroush, A. M., Mezghani, M., & Sèdes, F. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60045-1_24 · Cited by 6
Malicious Behaviour Identification in Online Social Networks
Tareaf, R. B., Berger, P., Hennig, P., & Meinel, C. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93767-0_2 · Cited by 6
Detecting Fake Twitter Accounts with using Artificial Neural Networks
ŞİMŞEK, M., YILMAZ, O., KAHRİMAN, A. H., & Sabah, L. (2018) · Artificial Intelligence Studies · doi:10.30855/ais.2018.01.01.03 · Cited by 6
An Efficient Approach of Spam Detection in Twitter
Katpatal, R., & Junnarkar, A. A. (2018) · International Conference on Inventive Research in Computing Applications (ICIRCA) · doi:10.1109/icirca.2018.8597208 · Cited by 6
Clustering of Tweets: A Novel Approach to Label the Unlabelled Tweets
Jan, T. G. (2019) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29407-6_48 · Cited by 6
Spam Detection using ANN and ABC Algorithm
Singh, A. J., Chahal, N., Singh, S., & Gupta, S. K. (2021) · International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence) · doi:10.1109/confluence51648.2021.9377061 · Cited by 6
Measurement and Early Detection of Third-Party Application Abuse on Twitter
Farooqi, S., & Shafiq, Z. (2019) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3308558.3313515 · Cited by 7
Tracking Triadic Cardinality Distributions for Burst Detection in Social Activity Streams
Zhao, J., Lui, J. C. S., Towsley, D., Wang, P., & Guan, X. (2015) · Conference on Online Social Networks · doi:10.1145/2817946.2817955 · Cited by 6
A social-engineering-centric data collection initiative to study phishing
Maggi, F., Sisto, A., & Zanero, S. (2011) · doi:10.1145/1978672.1978687 · Cited by 6
The Role of the Underground Economy in Social Network Spam and Abuse
Thomas, K. (2013) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 6
Stepping Up the Cybersecurity Game: Protecting Online Services from Malicious Activity
Stringhini, G. (2014) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 6
Self-citationSecurity and Privacy Measurements in Social Networks: Experiences and Lessons Learned
Polakis, I., Maggi, F., Zanero, S., & Keromytis, A. D. (2014) · International Workshop on Building Analysis Datasets and Gathering Experience Returns for Security (BADGERS) · doi:10.1109/badgers.2014.9 · Cited by 6
Empirical Understanding of Deletion Privacy: Experiences, Expectations, and MeasuresPreprint
Minaei, M., Mondal, M., & Kate, A. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.11317 · Cited by 6
Tang, Y., Zhang, D., Liang, W., Li, K., & Li, K. (2024) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2024.3416556 · Cited by 5
Cyber Deception Across Domains: A Comprehensive Survey of Techniques, Challenges, and Perspectives
Sayari, A., & Rekhis, S. (2025) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2025.0160792 · Cited by 5
Meo, P. D., Messina, F., Rosaci, D., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2014) · International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems (INCoS) · doi:10.1109/incos.2014.71 · Cited by 5
2D-SocialNetworks:AWay to Virally Distribute Popular Information Avoiding Spam
Meo, P. D., Messina, F., Rosaci, D., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2014) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10422-5_38 · Cited by 5
Sina-Weibo Spammer Detection with GBDT
Qiao, Y., Zhang, H., Yu, M., & Zhang, Y. (2016) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-2993-6_19 · Cited by 5
Attacking strategies and temporal analysis involving Facebook discussion groups
Lai, C.-M., Wang, X., Hong, Y., Lin, Y.-C., Wu, S. F., McDaniel, P., & Cam, H. (2017) · International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM) · doi:10.23919/cnsm.2017.8256040 · Cited by 5
Ren, G., Wang, H., & Yang, Y. (2025) · Informatica · doi:10.31449/inf.v49i18.7071 · Cited by 5
A Mapping Study to Investigate Spam Detection on Social Networks
Kamoru, B. A., Jaafar, A., & Murad, M. A. A. (2017) · International Journal of Applied Information Systems · doi:10.5120/ijais2017451652 · Cited by 5
A security approach based on honeypots: Protecting Online Social network from malicious profiles
Elmendili, F., Maqran, N., Idrissi, Y. E. B. E., & Chaoui, H. (2017) · Advances in Science Technology and Engineering Systems Journal · doi:10.25046/aj020326 · Cited by 5
A Framework for Evaluating Anti Spammer Systems for Twitter
Ho, K., Liesaputra, V., Yongchareon, S., & Mohaghegh, M. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69462-7_41 · Cited by 5
Detecting Organization-Targeted Socialbots by Monitoring Social Network Profiles
Vit, A. P., Shabtai, A., & Puzis, R. (2018) · Networks and Spatial Economics · doi:10.1007/s11067-018-9406-1 · Cited by 5
Spam Mail Detection and Prevention at Server Side
Shyry, S. P., Venkat Sai Charan, K., & Kumar, V. S. (2019) · Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies (i-PACT) · doi:10.1109/i-pact44901.2019.8959960 · Cited by 5
Surveying the Development of Authorship Identification of Text Messages
Altamimi, A., Alotaibi, S., & Alruban, A. (2019) · International Journal of Intelligent Computing Research · doi:10.20533/ijicr.2042.4655.2019.0116 · Cited by 5
Al-Thelaya, K., Al-Nethary, T. S., & Ramadan, E. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Informatics, IoT, and Enabling Technologies (ICIoT) · doi:10.1109/iciot48696.2020.9089509 · Cited by 5
To Err.Is Human: Characterizing the Threat of Unintended URLs in Social Media
Kaleli, B., Kondracki, B., Egele, M., Nikiforakis, N., & Stringhini, G. (2021) · Network and Distributed System Security Symposium · doi:10.14722/ndss.2021.24322 · Cited by 6
Self-citationDetecting Arabic YouTube Spam Using Data Mining Techniques
Tashtoush, Y. M., Magableh, A., Darwish, O., Smadi, L., Alomari, O., & ALghazoo, A. (2022) · International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS) · doi:10.1109/isdfs55398.2022.9800840 · Cited by 5
Understanding a prospective approach to designing malicious social bots
He, Y., Zhang, G., Wu, J., & Li, Q. (2016) · Security and Communication Networks · doi:10.1002/sec.1475 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Stringhini, G., Kruegel, C., & Vigna, G.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-12-06
- Pages
- 1-9
- ISSN
- 1063-9527 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1986678144
- Cited by
- 791
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 80 · 2017: 85 · 2016: 93 · 2015: 84 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 35
- FWCI
- 20.43
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Naval Research (N000140911042)
- Division of Computer and Network Systems (CNS-0845559CNS-0905537)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- spam detection, social networks, spammers, cybercrime, trust relationships, malicious websites, identity theft, personal data
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
